Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV

Old 6th Feb 2011, 11:10
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 455
Tax implications

One assumes that reps report both their BA and Union income, so that their tax codes can be adjusted accordingly?

(One assumes that because I can't believe the tax man wouldn't consider it "earnings" and already have taken care that they are getting their share).
ChicoG is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 12:31
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

Well notlangley,

I can only speak for myself but it is after the first ballot that I left the union realising that I was not going to be able to strike because I knew it was the wrong thing to do, so maybe other people felt like I did, I don't know.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 12:45
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Betty Girl

Would you carry out and support action short of a strike, if you were a union member, but voted against industrial action?
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 13:33
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Posts: 4
With regard to DH, we will shortly see the process and justification on his dismissal, if it is not settled. If we do get to see the case, then no doubt we will discuss to content outside of the legal verdict.

edit - after some advice and re-reading, what the above means is that I understand that DH will be taking BA to tribunal soon, over his dismissal. The ET will come to a verdict on whether the dismissal was fair or not. The facts will be presented and the ET will make a decision on whether BA was right to act in the way it did; whether the dismissal was in the band of reasonable responses. We will then make our minds up based on the facts and also discuss whether it was a reasonable response, based on the facts presented.

We will see all of this if the case is not settled outside of court.
The Watford Tribunal heard the case last week.

Last edited by vanmunchen; 16th Feb 2011 at 07:42.
vanmunchen is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 14:32
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
The Watford Tribunal heard the case last week. The Daily Telegraph had a brief report Friday saying he lost the case.
I don't think the Employment Tribunal has given its decision yet. I expect it will be weeks before we learn of the decision.
LD12986 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 14:47
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 99
Some of the reduction in crew 'numbers', so far as crew complements are concerned, in December 2009, and since, occurred because existing full time crew took part time. These and any other part time crew still have a 'whole' vote for or against IA, and presumably are better able to afford IA as they are clearly not the breadwinner of the family.
just an observer is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 14:53
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
This figure is obtained by subtracting the 10220 balloted in the most recent vote from the 12780 in the invalid vote twelve months ago._ Now there was something very wrong with that 12780 figure, because in the six weeks from 14 December 2009 to 25 January 2010 this 12780 dropped by a massive 1099 to 11691._ I do not believe that over one thousand members would have resigned from Unite in such a short time._ I can’t avoid jumping to the conclusion that most of these 1099 should never have been on the books._
Remember a lot of crew took (I think about 1,000) voluntary redundancy to allow the reduction in crew complements. The figure of 12,780 included crew who had left BA by way of voluntary redundancy, hence why BA got an injunction to block the strike.

Also, soundings are that the figure of 10,220 includes crew who have left the union.

At a rough estimate, BASSA and CC89 have lost at least 1,500 members during this dispute.

There may still be a strong alligence to BASSA (when this has been successfully cultivated by BASSA for decades it is not going to change overnight), but it has been weakened by a loss of members.

4,000 fewer crew voted yes to strike in the third ballot than in the first. That is a significant fall in support.
LD12986 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 15:44
  #208 (permalink)  
Junior trash
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Thank you LD12986 for your intervention._ You are basically correct._ The grand total who accepted voluntary redundancy was 993._ The Court decided on 17 December 2009 that the last two instalments of these (amounting to 811) had incorrectly been sent ballot papers._ The consequence of this that the "2,500" figure needs to have 811 deducted plus a deduction for attrition of membership numbers._ Your figure of 1,500 "walking away" is a reasonable estimate - I would think of 1,200 which is so very similar to your estimate that I don’t disagree with your estimate.
Thats always assuming that the membership records are correct and Unite have 10200 CC members in BA. I've flown with plenty in the last couple of months who arent Unite members (and havent been for 5 years in one case) and yet got sent ballot papers for this last ballot and are thus included in the 10200. It seems to me that we (including Unite and BA) have no clue what the Unite CC membership is or how many have left.
Hotel Mode is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 16:38
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: bournemouth
Posts: 2
Notlangley.

The "unnamed British Airways hack", " reckless statement by an anonymous spokesperson" quote you are talking about comes directly from Willie Walsh.

He wrote an article on 21st January published on the BA intranet under the news section to BA staff in response to the ballot result.

It is still there to see & the quote you highlight are his words, not those of an unnamed hack.
clocks is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 17:31
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
There have been some (unsourced) suggestions elsewhere that Unite may have to do the ballot again because of the likelihood of a successful challenge to this ballot.

Aside from everyone possibly losing the will to live in the interim, if Unite considers that a strike cannot go forward because of non-union members being balloted, it would surely take weeks/months for BASSA to fix its database to be certain that there are no procedural errors. Also, the issue of protection/continuation will not go away under a new ballot
LD12986 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 17:33
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

Litebulbs,
I left not just because I did not want to strike but because I could see that what Bassa was doing, was taking crew out over the WRONG issue. The main reason that Bassa wanted a strike, as far as I could see, was a vain attempt to protect the CSD rank on E/F and prevent CSD's on WW having to actually work on flights in the cabin during the inflight service routines. They had not negotiated in faith and were trying to get 767 longhaul work transferred to E/F in order to protect the CSD rank on E/F also.

I disagreed with all of this and whatever the action was I could not have supported it. Bassa have bombarded crew with misinformation and lies throughout this dispute and have said anything they could, to scaremonger crew into doing their bidding and thank God many are now starting to see the light.

Notlangley,

I think 'Just an observer' has given a good reason for all your figures not adding up as you would have liked.

As well as some taking VR, many took part time or were part time before they took VR or are just part time now. BA count people for total headcounts in parts, so 2 x 50% = 1 person and 4 x 75% = 3 people, so in that example 4 people on the total headcount of crew actually equals 6 voting people. Unless you know how many leaving were part time or how many have been given part time since the original figures, you wont be able to just add or subtract the figures accurately.
So I think you can't really compare the two sets of figures and equate it to anything understandable.

Hope that helps you understand why you are having trouble understanding the discrepancies in the figures.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 18:17
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Betty Girl

I have attempted to reply to you for the last 30 minutes and all that I can come up with is what a bloody mess, because the positions are so polarised within the workforce, regardless of what the management team are doing.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 19:07
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 73
BASSA Membership

It has been said on these threads that BASSA subs are paid by payroll check off. If this is correct and there are not other methods BASSA subs are collected then BA know exactly how many BASSA (not addressing CC89) members there are and who they are. From the CC89 web site : “National Officer Brian Boyd then addressed the meeting. He gave an update on the current legal situation which was welcomed by all. He also confirmed current membership figures that we have 1241 members, Bassa have 8975, so 10216 were balloted.” By simple subtraction BA know how many of the 8975 ballots were sent to non BASSA members. It is not rocket science if the assumption about how subs are collected is correct. Someone else will have to explain why BASSA can not figure it out.
pcat160 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 21:13
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by pcat160 View Post
It has been said on these threads that BASSA subs are paid by payroll check off. If this is correct and there are not other methods BASSA subs are collected then BA know exactly how many BASSA (not addressing CC89) members there are and who they are. From the CC89 web site : “National Officer Brian Boyd then addressed the meeting. He gave an update on the current legal situation which was welcomed by all. He also confirmed current membership figures that we have 1241 members, Bassa have 8975, so 10216 were balloted.” By simple subtraction BA know how many of the 8975 ballots were sent to non BASSA members. It is not rocket science if the assumption about how subs are collected is correct. Someone else will have to explain why BASSA can not figure it out.
It is accurate to say that all members of BASSA pay their dues by payroll deduction (there maybe the odd person that chose other methods) CC89 are virtually all on Direct Debit.

Your assumptions are therefor pretty good.
vctenderness is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 21:16
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 79
Posts: 184
It has previously been said on a number of occasions, that the BA figures for payroll deduction cannot be correct in reflecting the total BASSA/BA staff membership, as a number of members pay by direct debit from the their bank accounts or credit cards.

Does anyone know if this method of payment is being used and although BASSA is by its title only concerned with BA CC, have they any members in other airlines, possible ex BA CC.

VC - Apologies, just found that my post crosses yours, which provides the answer.
Entaxei is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 21:17
  #216 (permalink)  
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 63
Posts: 1,099
It is accurate to say that all members of BASSA pay their dues by payroll deduction
A copy of those who do being regularly given to BASSA, as I recall, the inability (??) of BASSA to decipher the spreadsheet was one of their excuses in one of the court cases.
west lakes is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2011, 23:40
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Am I correct in thinking that the Union's monthly subscription fee is the same amount for all its members? If so can't the Union simply divide the total amount of subscription fees deposited to its bank account in any month by the amount of its monthly fee and come up with the number of members who chose to pay that month be they BASSA or CC89?

None of this is rocket science.............
AV Flyer is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2011, 04:10
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
AV Flyer

Members of the Bassa branch pay more per month than me.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2011, 04:20
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Planet Earth, mostly
Posts: 448
It seems to me that we (including Unite and BA) have no clue what the Unite CC membership is
Doesn't BA deduct union dues from CC monthly salary payments? If so then BA knows exactly how may paying members there are.
etrang is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2011, 05:36
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
There will be the facility to pay by checkoff, but it might not be compulsory.
Litebulbs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.